Tuesday, August 9, 2011

White House Will Call for Syria's Assad to Step Down

Outside of Barney Frank's Fart Heard Round the World, this has to be the funniest news of the day. The White House is planning to call for Syrian president Assad to resign. I kid you not.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/09/obama-administration-to-call-for-syrias-assad-to-step-down/








Yeah, that worked real well with Ghaddafi, didn't it?

One can hardly wait for the response from Damascus..............



at

8 comments:

  1. Gary FouseAugust 10, 2011 at 9:31 AM

    WRH,

    While I agree with your assessment about Obama, what does Israel have to do with the fact that Assad is slaughtering his citizens?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Siarlys JenkinsAugust 10, 2011 at 11:53 AM

    So what's your point Gary?

    That you want Assad to stay in power?

    Or that we should send in the marines to take him out?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gary FouseAugust 10, 2011 at 2:29 PM

    My point is that Obama calling for anyone to step down is a meaningless joke. There is no other point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Siarlys JenkinsAugust 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM

    Ah, if the U.S. government is not able or willing to send in the marines, we should make no comment at all. Fair enough. I guess we should leave Israel alone too. God knows we're not going to send in the marines to save it -- although the IDF can do a decent job on its own.

    Qadaffi isn't laughing. He's cornered. It's taking longer because we didn't send in the marines, but that will be better in the long run. Assad knows that intervention in Syria would be much more costly, and nobody in the world wants to pay the price.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Siarlys JenkinsAugust 12, 2011 at 3:50 PM

    "The Syrians are not rioting because of anything Israel or the US did. It seems that they want to throw out their dictator."

    I think you're right about that Miggie. And the only voices I hear blaming Israel are some portion of the propaganda being churned out by the Assad machine, which needs any scapegoat they can get.

    But what Gary seems confused about is, given that what you said is true, what exactly should the United States do about it? Perhaps the answer is nothing, people in Syria have to sort this out as best they can. Perhaps it is true that if we are not prepared to send in the marines, then our State Department should shut up and stop posturing as if we have some weight to throw around. Or maybe there is something we SHOULD be doing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MiggieAugust 12, 2011 at 11:50 PM

    The more we cut defense budget and beg forgiveness for our "arrogance" the less strength and the less credibility we have. We lack, with this administration, any projection of willl.. This limits even the threat of what we MIGHT do. Nobody respects our resolve. We've taken away our own options.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Siarlys JenkinsAugust 14, 2011 at 6:14 PM

    Miggie, the defense budget is one of the larger budget items. If we are serious about cutting $4 trillion, defense is going to take some deep cuts, even if we cut everything else twice as much.

    One more time: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, even in national defense spending. We get what we pay for. We pay for it now, in tax revenues, or we pay for it later, with interest, after borrowing the money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MiggieAugust 15, 2011 at 11:44 PM

    Liberals are weak on defense. That is their preferred area to cut budget. There are plenty of other areas of government bloat I would cut first. The cost of all these overlapping agencies, commitssions, and departments is unbelievably expensive besides all the rules and regulations they impose every day.

    We don't have to "pay for it" now or later if we don't buy it. I would roll back all the departments, agencies, czars that have been created by this administration, starting with ObamaCare.

    ReplyDelete